Em Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 05:13:01PM +0000, Song Liu escreveu:
> > On Feb 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > Em Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 04:00:45PM -0800, Song Liu escreveu:
> >> +pthread_t poll_thread;
> >> +
> >> +int bpf_event__start_polling_thread(struct bpf_event_poll_args *args)
> >> +{
> >> + struct perf_evsel *counter;
> >> +
> >> + args->evlist = perf_evlist__new();
> >> +
> >> + if (args->evlist == NULL)
> >> + return -1;
> >> +
> >> + if (perf_evlist__create_maps(args->evlist, args->target))
> > goto out_delete_evlist;
> >> +
> >> + if (perf_evlist__add_bpf_tracker(args->evlist))
> > goto out_delete_evlist;
> >> +
> >> + evlist__for_each_entry(args->evlist, counter) {
> >> + if (perf_evsel__open(counter, args->evlist->cpus,
> >> + args->evlist->threads) < 0)
> > goto out_delete_evlist;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (perf_evlist__mmap(args->evlist, UINT_MAX))
> > goto out_delete_evlist;
> >> +
> >> + evlist__for_each_entry(args->evlist, counter) {
> >> + if (perf_evsel__enable(counter))
> > goto out_delete_evlist;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (pthread_create(&poll_thread, NULL, bpf_poll_thread, args))
> > goto out_delete_evlist;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> > out_delete_evlist:
> > perf_evlist__delete(args->evlist);
> > args->evlist = NULL;
Have you seen the error handling suggestion above?
> >> +int perf_evlist__add_bpf_tracker(struct perf_evlist *evlist)
> >> +{
> >> + struct perf_event_attr attr = {
> >> + .type = PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE,
> >> + .config = PERF_COUNT_SW_DUMMY,
> >> + .watermark = 1,
> >> + .bpf_event = 1,
> >> + .wakeup_watermark = 1,
> >> + .size = sizeof(attr), /* to capture ABI version */
> >> + };
> >> + struct perf_evsel *evsel = perf_evsel__new_idx(&attr,
> >> + evlist->nr_entries);
> >> +
> >> + if (evsel == NULL)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + perf_evlist__add(evlist, evsel);
> > You could use:
> > struct perf_evlist *evlist = perf_evlist__new_dummy();
> > if (evlist != NULL) {
> > struct perf_evsel *evsel == perf_evlist__first(evlist);
> > evsel->attr.bpf_event = evsel->attr.watermark =
> > evsel->attr.wakeup_watermark = 1;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > return -1;
> This looks cleaner. Let me fix in next version.
> > Because in this case all you'll have in this evlist is the bpf tracker,
> > right? The add_bpf_tracker would be handy if we would want to have a
> > pre-existing evlist with some other events and wanted to add a bpf
> > tracker, no?
> I think all we need is a side-band evlist instead of the main evlist. May
> be we should call it side-band evlist, and make it more generic?
Sure, you could for instance have something like:
struct perf_event_attr attr = {
.watermark = 1,
.bpf_event = 1,
.wakeup_watermark = 1,
}
struct perf_evlist *evlist = perf_evlist__new_side_band(&attr);
And the other details will be set by it, i.e. the .config
.type = PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE,
.config = PERF_COUNT_SW_DUMMY,
.size = sizeof(attr), /* to capture ABI version */
And the idx arg.
- Arnaldo
